Since everything is being interpreted through the lens of the EU referendum at the moment, it’s perhaps no surprise that George Osborne, commenting on these figures, said: “the threat of leaving the EU is weighing on our economy”.

Really? That’s why it's a bit slower? Nothing to do with the “dangerous cocktail of new threats” warned about at the start of this quarter in January.

Then, Osborne said growth was threatened by “worrying news about stock market falls around the world, the slowdown in China, deep problems in Brazil and in Russia”, by oil falling from $120/barrel to $40/barrel since that was “bad news for the oil and gas industry, worrying for the creditors who have lent to it, and a massive problem for the countries that depend on it.”

Instead, a slight dip in GDP growth (and 0.4pc is by no means disastrous — by some estimates that’s pretty close to trend growth for the UK economy at the moment) is a signal from markets that we shouldn’t leave the EU.

Come off it! I don’t doubt that there is some pondering by firms whether it’s better to invest in this project (which will do better if we Remain in the EU) or that project (which will do better if we Leave), and if there’s no need to invest immediately they might well delay until they knew the result of the referendum. That’s only prudent.

It’s much the same kind of thing that occurs just before General Elections. But that sort of delay to investment because of uncertainty doesn’t prove that Leaving or Remaining is better for the economy.

Watch | EU referendum: everything you need to know about polling day

01:47

There’s a similar point to be made about the fall in sterling in some of Q1 (though in recent week’s we’ve been back to close to where we were in December). Some small part of that might be to do with the referendum.

Most of it will be because the expected date of the first interest rate rise in the UK has gone way off into the future.

“What we’ll gain over the longer term, particularly in geopolitical terms, will be more than worth that modest short-term cost.”

Andrew Lilico

It should also not be forgotten that it was George Osborne’s boss, David Cameron, who called the referendum.

If he really believed having a referendum is so bad for the economy, why did he do it?

Is it possible that he believes that a small delay to investment or even some modest short-term cost in terms of slower GDP growth might be worth it for the longer-term political gains of holding the referendum.

Well, that’s how I regard Brexit. I think there’s every chance that — as with the referendum itself — there may be slightly slower growth for a short-ish period.

But what we’ll gain over the longer term, particularly in geopolitical terms, will be more than worth that modest short-term cost.